I always figured the law would be struck down, to the extent it seems to conflict with the "full faith and credit" clause.

This ruling goes much farther than that, though. It will be interesting to see what the makeup of the Supreme Court looks like when this makes its way there. Right now, I get the sense that Kennedy would vote to strike down the law.

It will be interesting to see if Kennedy's position has changed since Lawerence v Texas. I think he might come around to the heightened scrutiny argument since he kind of already used it in Lawerence, even though he oddly called it rational basis.

I also think he views this issue as part of his legacy given Romers then Lawerence.

I'm against same-sex marriage, so I'll be disappointed if this law is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, though technically it would be constitutionally right to do so, because, since marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution, it's an issue that should be left to the states, per Amendment X.

That said, I find it sadly amusing that liberals seem to be generally (not always) fine with an overreaching federal government—except for in the case of social hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage. "Yes, let's federally legislate environmental issues, even though the Constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government, but we absolutely must not touch marriage."

Logged

"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

I believe in a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause that is part of the taxing and spending clause. The liberal point of view tends to be permissive of government power in areas that pertain to the common good and less permissive in areas that pertain to individual liberty. One reasonable interpretation is that the distribution of wealth is more a matter of the common good than individual liberty.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

not to pick an argument or get myself banned from the forums but just for my own education, why would someone (not you in particular but someone that shares your viewpoint) be against something that has no impact on them (at least as far as I can tell, whether or not 2 people are married shouldn't impact someone else's life).

My perspective is that I can understand where religious institutions wouldn't sanction/perform these types of marriage ceremonies if their beliefs don't support them and shouldn't be required to perform those ceremonies. However, what's the basis to be against something like civil unions which would be treated as the legal equivalent? Is there any objection to civil unions?

Since we have freedom of religion and everyone is entitled to equal right in the constitution, I don't see the legal ground to stop/disallow civil unions. Can't discriminate against someon for sexual preference and can't tell them they can't do it because it doesn't jive with someone else's religious beliefs.

Again, not looking for an argument, just some insight on a different viewpoint on this issue.

That said, I find it sadly amusing that liberals seem to be generally (not always) fine with an overreaching federal government—except for in the case of social hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage. "Yes, let's federally legislate environmental issues, even though the Constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government, but we absolutely must not touch marriage."

I'd like federal legislation banning people from putting things in quotation marks, that nobody actually said.

Liberals are against DOMA because it's discriminatory, not because they don't like federal over-reach.

I'm against same-sex marriage, so I'll be disappointed if this law is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, though technically it would be constitutionally right to do so, because, since marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution, it's an issue that should be left to the states, per Amendment X.

That said, I find it sadly amusing that liberals seem to be generally (not always) fine with an overreaching federal government—except for in the case of social hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage. "Yes, let's federally legislate environmental issues, even though the Constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government, but we absolutely must not touch marriage."

You make an interesting point.

I disagree with some of your characterization of an "overreaching federal government". I think with things like environmental regulation it makes policy sense to have the national government set the rules. It reduces the economic inefficiency problem when people can externalize some cost. In other words if CA emission standards were allowed to be lower than the federal govts then people in OH, VA, or MA would be forced to 'pay' for some of the cost of that pollution. CA wouldnt be responsible for the full cost of its pollution and would probably over-pollute.

As for social issues, there is a famous footnote in a Supreme Court case about filled milk (of all things) that I think addresses your concern. Link John Ely Hart would also be a good source for reading.

Finally, many people think the Civil Rights amendments, specifically the 14th amendment, flipped the 10th amendment on its head. I agree with them.

I would not be surprised if the Court upholds some but not all of DOMA, with Justice Kennedy writing a majority opinion which all of the other justices concur in part and dissent in part. That would certainly be the most entertaining outcome.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

I'm against same-sex marriage, so I'll be disappointed if this law is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, though technically it would be constitutionally right to do so, because, since marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution, it's an issue that should be left to the states, per Amendment X.

That said, I find it sadly amusing that liberals seem to be generally (not always) fine with an overreaching federal government—except for in the case of social hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage. "Yes, let's federally legislate environmental issues, even though the Constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government, but we absolutely must not touch marriage."

Ironic. I've always found it amusing that conservatives are generally--not always--so against an "overreaching" federal government, except in cases of social hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage.